By Joe Conason

On Civil Liberties, Comparing Obama With Bush Is Easy — And Mostly Wrong

June 14, 2013 3:09 pm Category: Memo Pad, Politics 205 Comments A+ / A-
On Civil Liberties, Comparing Obama With Bush Is Easy — And Mostly Wrong

Nearly a dozen years after the passage of the PATRIOT Act — rushed through Congress in an atmosphere of fear and intimidation — informed debate over the balance between liberty and security is long overdue.  That includes a public examination of how widely and deeply the National Security Agency (and other elements of the “intelligence community”) may monitor Americans’ telecommunications without violating the Bill of Rights.

But that needed discussion isn’t enhanced by hysteria or the partisan opportunism it encourages.  As others have noted already, the supposed revelation that the NSA is collecting metadata on telephone use in this country isn’t exactly startling news. The fugitive ex-CIA contractor Edward Snowden, who leaked documents concerning that program to the London Guardian and the Washington Post, may yet unveil more startling revelations from his peculiar refuge in China. But anyone paying attention has known about this program since 2006, when USA Today first disclosed its existence.

The most important difference today is that Americans are no longer too frightened by the constant “terror alerts” of the Bush administration to consider the boundaries of surveillance and security.  Rather than hyping the terrorist threat, like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, President Obama has repeatedly framed a calmer — if equally resolute — attitude toward Islamist extremism.

So while facile comparisons between the Obama and Bush administrations now appear every day in the media, they are quite misleading. Uttered by Republicans and their mouthpieces on Fox News, such arguments are hypocritical as well.

Consider the single most important surveillance controversy of the Bush era, namely the warrantless wiretapping undertaken on the president’s orders. In December 2005, the New York Times revealed that Bush had authorized the NSA to monitor phone calls and emails originating in U.S. territory, without obtaining warrants as required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA. (That’s why it was called “warrantless.”) For the first time since Watergate – and the intelligence reforms resulting from that true scandal — the U.S. government had eavesdropped on Americans’ conversations without seeking the permission of a judge.

Only months before, Bush had claimed publicly that he was a steward of civil liberties and that his agents always got a court order before implementing a wiretap. But his administration had been using warrantless wiretaps ever since the 9/11 attacks.

Those trespasses against liberty went considerably further than the collection of metadata by the NSA.  No reports indicate that the Obama administration violated existing law to eavesdrop on any American — or listened to any calls without the sanction of the special FISA court.

Pages →  1 2

On Civil Liberties, Comparing Obama With Bush Is Easy — And Mostly Wrong Reviewed by on . Nearly a dozen years after the passage of the PATRIOT Act -- rushed through Congress in an atmosphere of fear and intimidation -- informed debate over the balan Nearly a dozen years after the passage of the PATRIOT Act -- rushed through Congress in an atmosphere of fear and intimidation -- informed debate over the balan Rating:

More by Joe Conason

Cuba Diplomacy: Behind Right-Wing Outrage, An Intellectual Void

Republican critics furiously denounce Obama's Cuba initiative -- but they're devoid of fresh ideas.

Read more...

The Senate Torture Report: Crimes Without Punishment

The CIA broke international law and American values. How can the nation hold torturers accountable?

Read more...

Maximizing Your Health Benefits Before Year’s End

Your insurer must provide a simple "summary of benefits" that can help you save money -- before the New Year.

Read more...

Tags

Comments

  • Sand_Cat

    It doesn’t require excusing Obama’s abuses to show that Bush and Cheney are probably the worst ever, not only in this area, but in a wealth of others.
    It isn’t “news” to me that the NSA does what it wants; it always has. That’s a big reason for the secrecy around it.
    It also isn’t news that Obama supports this: he voted for the FISA law while a senator, and signed the PATRIOT ACT renewal and – unless I’m mistaken – the FISA renewal as well.
    What seems to come as news to most is that in most respects – other than the fact that he seems sane, intelligent, educated, and genuinely concerned about people – Obama is an excellent moderate Republican, and has been since the beginning of his first term.
    It also seems news to Obama that he could have headed off most of his troubles with sane and responsible people by strongly repudiating the abuses of his immediate predecessor and actually doing something to stop or reduce those within his power to stop. Instead, he has seemed to me all too enamored with signing statements and most of the other Bush abuses of executive power in all areas. So now, the best those of us who would like to ridicule and expose the Republicans for the spineless frauds and hypocrites they are can do is say “Bush was worse,” which sounds even lamer than it is.
    Obama was bound to have lots of enemies among Republicans, but his repeated betrayals of his base in a deluded attempt to appease those who hated everything about him, from his skin color to the “D” after his name, and who will never change, leaves those who should and could be his friends feeling – at best – lukewarm, defensive, and undermined at every step. I’m sure he did none of the things of which flagrant liars and hypocrites like Daryl Issa, John McCain, and Lindsay Graham accuse him, but his current troubles are still very much of his own making.

    • charleo1

      As you know, cat. I’m a huge supporter of President Obama. And, I
      believe you’ve described his place on the Right to Left scale we use as
      convenient markers, pretty much on the money. He is very much the
      moderate Republican. He just is. As to the disappointment of the
      Left Wing of the Democratic Party. No doubt about it. It was likely
      the contributing factor that caused the history making defeat of the
      Liberals in 2010. That clearly wanted out from under the tyrannies of
      the private insurance cartels. We didn’t get it, and many disgusted,
      Progressives, sat home. But, it seems to me, the real culprit that set
      up all the disappointment, was us Liberals ourselves. Transferring
      onto Obama, what we each wanted to him to be. In fact, there
      was a lot of transferring going on. I don’t think he has been for the
      African Americans, what they hoped he would be. And if any blame
      is to be cast upon Obama the candidate, is he was all too happy to
      let these various groups within the Party, keep their fantasies.
      Perhaps justifying to himself, it was his place as a candidate to relate
      his positions on the issues. And, not so much to disabuse these
      perceptions of him, and explain to his supporters who he was not.
      Like you, I believe Barack Obama to be smart, competent, executive.
      Unlike Bush, where I would get this impression, that other people, off
      stage, were actually in control of his administration. Obama is in charge.
      And his people who serve, and work with him on a daily basis, are
      dedicated to his agenda. And not working on their own agenda behind
      his back. As seemed the case so often with Bush. Perhaps I forgive
      his shortcomings, because I believe he is a basically good man, doing
      a tough job to the best of his ability. Or, maybe it was just coming into
      the light, after 8 years of living in the dark dungeon of Bush, and his
      maniacal bunch of madmen. That accounts for my opinion. It could,
      because, I really did not care for Bush.

      • Sand_Cat

        “Really did not care for Bush” would be a colossal understatement on my part. I was unhappy enough about the FISA thing that I said I wouldn’t vote for Obama, but when it came right down to it, I couldn’t face the prospect of John McCain and that idiot in office, smug in the belief that all their lies worked. When he won, I got caught up in the euphoria and allowed myself to believe that things would actually change. And they did – a little. We had a president who wasn’t an embarrassment, who I could actually respect (how long is it since I could last say that!), and who wasn’t constantly trying to shaft someone else to make himself look good. Maybe that seems like a lot to you, but I’m an old geezer sick of watching the Republicans go all out and get their way with a one-vote majority, and – in the last few years – while in the minority, at every chance, doing tremendous damage, then getting a Democrat who slows our slide to Fascism a bit, but never seems to have the conviction to really stop it, or -god forbid – actually reverse it a little. The House during the first two years was pretty impressive, but the Senate was an embarrassment from day one, and still is. When Harry Reid made a “gentlemen’s agreement” to control the filibuster with one of the very last people on earth I could by any means consider a “gentleman” – Mitch McConnell – I knew it was over. During it all, Obama never once made a convincing show of anger at the non-stop betrayals and brazen political games, not to mention the lies, from the Republicans, and consistently treated them better. He gave speeches making fun of those of us who had supported him and naively thought that now we had a different kind of man to carry the banner for us and lead, and “negotiated” away all our hopes before the negotiations even started, and NEVER attempted to make the Republicans pay any political price whatsoever for their flagrant disregard for the country’s welfare. I was angry enough to vote for the Green Party candidate in 2012, even though I was terrified the Mittwit – possibly the most shallow, selfish, arrogant and dishonest presidential candidate in history, beaten only by George W Bush on the dishonest and shallow parts – might actually win. I would prefer to abandon the Democrats completely, but have nowhere to go.
        The article is correct that Obama is not so bad as Bush, but he has left in place pretty much the entire unconstitutional structure erected by Bush, Cheney, and Gonsales, and the others for use by later presidents. He never once even pointed out their criminal actions, much less tried to reverse or call them to account for them. Even the ostentatious “outlawing” of torture is meaningless: Obama continued to send “terrorists” – a word rapidly becoming as meaningless as “Communists – to prisons on foreign soil (I don’t recall the name of the airbase in Afghanistan, but I remember it) where he claimed the Constitution and US law don’t apply. I know that the next Republican will try to put it all back in place, but might find it just a tiny bit more difficult to do so had Obama showed some appropriate anger and disgust and reversed all the bad executive orders, even if he didn’t have the guts or the power to go after the rotten laws. Anyone opposing the next Republican’s abuses will be reminded that Obama supported all or most, and – at least occasionally – used some of them himself.

        • charleo1

          Again, I gotta say, you summed it all up very well.
          Yes, to say I didn’t care for Bush, is very much an
          under statement, as to my opinion of his entire time
          in office. I can’t say he was the worst, only because
          my knowledge of previous Presidents is too limited.
          I can only say, he was the worst I ever seen. And
          I was born in ’54. And, thanks for taking the time
          to have a great conversation, I thoroughly enjoyed!

          • Sand_Cat

            Thanks, it was my pleasure.

          • Independent1

            Charle, I have to totally agree with your comments about Bush jr. with respect to a President being the worst to live through at the time. During Bush jr.s 8 years in office I couldn’t imagine any previous president having been worse – I would actually get physically ill to my stomach every time he would come on the news or make a speech; mainly because I knew every word that came out of his mouth was a flat out lie. And that whatever he was trying to do was going to be bad for the country. However, since he left office, I’ve concluded that the worst president ever was Ronald Reagan – it was Ronnie who started America on the downslide to where we find ourselves today.

          • charleo1

            Sometimes it takes decades to properly judge a President.
            One of the most dramatic, and telling, line graphs you may
            ever see, demonstrates the increase in wealth disparity
            beginning in 1980, with Reagan’s first term to the present.
            Jimmy Carter is judged as a mediocre President. But, how
            much more volatile would the Mid East be, if not for the
            Camp David Accords? But, I know exactly what you say
            about Bush Jr. It’s sorta funny. But when Bush would
            make a speech, or hold a news conference, I would be
            virtually screaming at the television, without even realizing
            it! And my wife would calmly say, “So you think he can
            hear you now?

          • Independent1

            I don’t feel Jimmy Carter was as bad a president as many make him out to be. I think few realize that he actually reduced deficit spending and got America’s debt to the lowest level related to GDP of any president since WWII – he’s the only president that got our debt below 50% of GDP (actually to around 35%). And as you pointed out, he negotiated the Camp David Accords and actually negotiated the release of the hostages being held in Iran (after he had lost the election) on the day he left office.

            Jimmy also established the Energy Dept and created FEMA by consolidating a number of federal relief agencies that were actually offshoots from the Emergency Relief Administration created by a Republican (Hoover) and created an agency that another Republican turned into a department within Homeland Security (Bush jr.). Jimmy also brought the unemployment level down to a very low level by establishing policies that resulted in creating more than 8 million jobs in 4 years; which is almost 3 times what Bush Jr. created in 8 years and about the same number that it took Reagan 8 years to create. And I think any American would be hard pressed to find a president that has done as much for the people of this country and the world as Jimmy Carter has since he left office.

        • Independent1

          Sand_Cat, Charle, I can’t disagree with a good deal of what you’ve brought out, but keep in mind, that although Obama has kept in place a bit of the legislation that Bush had his slave congress legislate for him, there’s a big difference in how that legislation is administered. For example, although the Patriot Act provides for indefinite detention, in the signing statement, Obama made in quite clear that his administration would in no way provide detention for anyone in a way that was not supported by the Constitution. Although I too have been disturbed by some of the things he’s allowed to stay in place, I’ve come to realize that in many cases he’s done that, so as not to jeopardize getting the support of the GOP for provisions in the legislation that he could live with – in a sense, he has COMPROMISED. He’s not made an issue of parts of legislation that he disagrees with, in order to get the parts that he’s wanted – knowing that in application, he his administration can choose to ignore the parts of the legislation that would be outside the realm of decency – as the GOP is so prone to do: totally ignore decency.
          Although many are convinced that the NSA is “collecting call data” on millions of Americans – I’ve seen no proof of that. It’s my sense that if the NSA is collecting and storing data on Americans calls, it’s only on those people who the NSA has
          thought (maybe rightly or wrongly) are suspect of being involved in activities detrimental to America. I really doubt serriously that the NSA is just willy nilly collecting and storing call data on millions upon millions of Americans, despite what many PARANOIDS posting on the National Memo may choose to think.

          • WhutHeSaid

            No proof? You can easily find the order for Verizon to produce, and continue to produce on a daily basis, telephony data of all customers to the NSA — it’s available online. This order includes telephone calls within the United States as well as calls between the United States and other countries. If you cannot find the proof of this data collection it’s only because you are too preoccupied with licking the government’s boots.

            The government is not collecting data ‘willy-nilly’. It’s collecting ALL telephony data from Verizon in a very complete and systematic way. This is just one order to one of the largest communications companies in the world, with millions of American customers. Why should we expect that this order isn’t duplicated with other providers?

            You don’t know what they are doing or might do with this data. They could, for instance, easily track people’s locations on a daily basis. They could even use mobile identification numbers to pinpoint and go after real-time call and messaging data between whomever they wanted, which I do not doubt is a large part of the purpose for the collection.

            People who object to the violation of American privacy without due process are not ‘paranoid’. Paranoia is a condition where you possess an inordinate amount of fear about things that aren’t likely to happen. A fear that the government will use this data to snoop into the lives of ordinary citizens is not inordinate fear — it’s the obvious purpose. Good intentions or not, people have a right to their privacy unless the government can show cause for suspicion that they may have committed some crime. Ordering Verizon to turn over telephony data on ALL customers is just casting a wide net over everyone without any real justification.

            I know there are people who drop their pants and grab their ankles for the government instinctively, and that’s their right. You can voluntarily send them your private data and even a pair of your panties if you wish, but you have no right volunteering MY private data.

          • Sand_Cat

            Yeah, I don’t want to make an argument against you because I think we’re on the same side where it counts, but NSA is building a staggeringly-huge facility for data storage (“zetabytes”), I believe in Nevada. From what I recall of James Bamford’s PUZZLE PALACE, their activities have been illegal under U.S. law from day one of the agency’s foundation (before Obama was born), and their computer technology has been estimated as at least six years ahead of pretty much anything outside. At first they had to confine themselves to searching for certain keywords in telephone conversations when monitoring ALL telephone conversations passing through the main channel of communication on the east coast, but I’m quite sure they are well beyond that now, and the day is not far off – and may be here now, for all we know – when they can literally monitor EVERY phone conversation they can intercept, and the HUGE storage they are obtaining will allow them to retroactively do so as well. What can be done to stop it is likely an exercise in futility at this juncture, but let’s not pretend it isn’t happening. I know we have no “proof,” but really, has any government ever possessed any technology usable for harm without using it? The US may be the only nation to actually detonate a nuclear weapon over cities, but that doesn’t mean others didn’t use them for intimidation and that no one will in the future, especially with the lax security in many countries (probably including our own), and the side affects of deployment – even for “peaceful” purposes – have been sickness and suffering for hundreds of thousands (possibly millions, but I don’t want to get too alarmist without some firm facts at my disposal) who worked in or lived near the mines – and who even today live near the closed ones – or the facilities, not to mention the untold devastation of habitat and populations of other living beings, and the – for all practical purposes – permanent poisoning of large areas of the country, and this in the country with at least a nominal representative government. Think about what things are like in China, the former Soviet Union, and Pakistan. I think it’s fair to assume that if our government isn’t monitoring everything all of us do or say all the time, it’s working hard to reach that capability, and will use it when it becomes available. And they need not monitor all of us for the effect to be the same, anyway. Though he may strike you as overly alarmist, try reading Derrick Jensen’s (I forget his co-author’s name) WELCOME TO THE MACHINE, from which you could go on to his other books not explicitly on this topic, but relevant to the mindset. There was also an excellent and infuriating fictional – or should I say “fictional” – mini-series on Masterpiece Classic about “Total Information Awareness” in Britain several years ago; unfortunately, I can’t recall the name.

          • Independent1

            I did some checking and you’re close, NSA’s 3rd data recording facility should be in Utah at the junction of two power grids; they outgrew the power capabilities of their facility in Maryland and built a 2nd facility outside San Antonio – the 3rd should be in Utah. But the article I read, which was the Homeland Security news line, made it clear that the need for these WASN’T to monitor private phone calls, but rather to keep abreast of government related phone calls around the world (NSA also built a facility in England to store government related calls to Europe and Western Asia). I spent 9 years in the Security Service working for NSA, several of them in the US doing just that -monitoring the activity of the military and other government workers. But that was almost 50 years ago before cell phones, email, personal computers etc. And the article noted that there were concerns within Homeland Security, that they could do a good job of monitoring government related calls, emails and other computer communications without overlapping into monitoring private calls, WHICH THEY CONSIDERED A PROBLEM. Given that outside the government related traffic (which includes monioring, diplomatic and other intra departmental government calls, fax transmissions, emails, etc. etc., there is also monitoring airline communication, military flights, shipping ommunications, and on and on with respect to the government). So I’m sorry but with 2.4 billion privately made calls each day,i STILL DOUBT SERIOUSLY, that there is much of any “call monitoring” of private citizen traffic – UNLESS THERE IS A CAUSE FOR THE MONITORING; THE CALLER DID SOMETHING THAT MAKES THEIR CALL SUSPECT LIKE DIALING OUTSIDE THE US TO A COUNTRY WITH KNOWN TERRORIST ACTIVITY; DIALED A NUMBER INTELLIGENCE SAYS IS SUSPECT; OR SOMETHING ELSE SUSPECT!!!! For people to assume that computers are detail monitoring 2.4 billion phone calls/day – is in my mind ABSOLUTE NONSENSE!!!!

          • WhutHeSaid

            Stop building a straw-man argument. Nobody is claiming that the NSA is actively monitoring every single call. You keep repeating this, but I haven’t seen anyone make the claim. So in effect you are arguing with yourself.

            You may have total faith in the government not to abuse it’s power. That’s your right — as naive as it may be. It’s most certainly NOT your right, however, to try to force me to blindly trust all of the people who have and may have access to my personal information. I object to these types of practices unless there is a convincing reason why it’s necessary, and I don’t see that as the case.

            I can assure you that there are companies that store 100% of their customer’s calls — at least in certain parts of the business where they feel there is value to doing this. This is not only possible, but it’s being done. I can also assure you that it’s technically feasible to build databases of communication information that would allow you to snoop into the lives of private citizens — online scam artists do it all the time without anywhere near the resources of a large government agency.

            Since you appear incapable of actually understanding the concerns being expressed out here, let me try to make it clear:

            People are not saying that the NSA is snooping into every American’s personal life. What they are saying is that they do not want the NSA or any other government agency building the ability and infrastructure to do so — at least not without meaningful safeguards. If the ability to abuse ordinary citizens is there then the probability that somebody in the government will eventually do just that is around 100%

          • Independent1

            Sorry, but you’re mistaken. Several posters that have responded to my comments on this and other blog threads have insisted that it’s t heir opinion that the NSA is not only reviewing every call someone makes but also recording and storing them. I am not trying to ‘build a straw-man’. I am trying to refute the nonsense notion of a number of posters. And let me tell you, there is a huge difference between a company that gets maybe 1-2 thousand calls a day storing those calls, and the NSA trying to intercept, record and store 2.4 billion calls/day – which is NONSENSE!!

          • WhutHeSaid

            Perhaps there are a couple of posts that I didn’t see, but from what I can tell the primary concern is about the potential for abuse of the privacy of American citizens. People see the potential if not outright erosion of their Constitutional rights and are understandably concerned — this includes me.

            I personally have the capability to store several thousand phone calls per day in their entirety (not that I’d want to do so) with the resources I have on hand, and I’m just one person. It doesn’t require advanced technology. If you truly believe that the US Government with all of it’s resources cannot accomplish very much of what people have expressed their concerns over, then you are woefully out of touch with reality in this respect. It’s a matter of law and policy — not capability.

          • Independent1

            I fully understand what you’re saying but I think what most people are missing is the common sense of it. What you and others are suggesting may be taking place, only makes sense if you also assume that the government is monitoring Americans with a devious intent -that is, that the government is monitoring people purposely to try and dig up dirt on them. And I guess, I have a real problem with that notion – I doubt seriously that the NSA is purposely trying to dig up dirt on people; I believe that the NSA’s intent is honest – that is, that they are looking for people who are trying to kill Americans and/or do other destruction to the country.
            If you assume the latter notion, that the NSA’s intent for monitoring is honest, then the notion that the NSA would be willy nilly monitoring and recording all calls (violating someone’s privacy) makes no sense. With 2.4 billion private citizen phone calls being made per day, and the likelihood that only a miniscule portion of those would be related to terrorism, say even a thousand or two, anyone with common sense would realize that totally monitoring and recording 2.4 billion calls to weed out 1-2 thousand would be a gross waste of data resources and quite candidly – MAKES NO SENSE.
            To me then, in order to not waste resources, the most the NSA might be doing is what I suggested – culling out calls that are suspect because of the phone number being dialed, and if any actual monitoring of calls is being done, to do that with some form of software that is checking for keywords – words that those with experience in intelligence gathering know that terrorists may use in their phone conversations (and I’m certainly not qualified to know what those words would be – but the word bomb, comes to mind).
            So I guess I also have a severe problem with people getting all worked up with the notion that their “privacy” is being violated if the NSA simply has some software program checking their calls for them using words in their conversations that would suggest that they are terrorists – when in fact, unless they use words that make them suspect, NO ONE is actually listening to their phone calls, or recording what they’re saying, or doing anything to in fact violate their PRIVACY!!! People who have a problem with the government working to protect their lives by simply checking their phone conversations via computer software to protect them in a world that everyone knows is ripe for terrorism – are in my mind total morons – and would be themselves responsible for the lives of anyone who is killed by a terrorist, should their nonsense concerns prevent the NSA from continuing to protect the lives of other Americans.

          • WhutHeSaid

            I understand that you are a government boot-licker. There are such people in the world, people who have never had a cause to distrust the government and didn’t pay attention in history class or somehow think they are ‘special’ and immune to what history has shown us time and time again: Given the power to abuse others, people will eventually do just that.

            I normally respect your arguments, but in this case I vehemently disagree with your view. The difference is that you are trying to FORCE your view upon me, while the opposite isn’t true. I don’t care one whit if you let the government search your house, your car, and/or perform cavity searches on you and your family every day — that’s your business. But you are trying to force something on me that I don’t agree with.

            Are you really so technologically impaired that you don’t know that retaining recordings is neither a) impossible, nor b) important to the discussion? Who needs to retain recordings when they can monitor data in real time? Are you really so clueless that you don’t understand why protection against unreasonable search and seizure was put into the US Constitution in the first place?

            Claiming that people who object to invasion of their privacy are somehow ‘morons’ or responsible for terrorist attacks is the most ridiculous and idiotic argument I’ve heard you make yet. That’s like saying if you object to police just barging into your house whenever they want, if a robbery occurs downtown you should be blamed. An honest citizen is not to blame for the actions of terrorists, and the wish to retain their rights as a citizen doesn’t increase their culpability.

            Let me spell it out clearly for you once more: If the government builds the capability to abuse the privacy of ordinary citizens IT WILL HAPPEN. It’s not a matter of IF — it’s just a matter of WHEN. That’s how people work — they will eventually do whatever they can get away with. This has always been true, and it will always be true forever and ever. Get that though through your thick skull, because it’s one of the few things about people that you can always count upon.

            It doesn’t matter if they store 100% of people’s phone calls, 20% of their calls, 5% of their calls or none at all. They can scan calls without ever recording anything — it’s perfectly feasible and being done this very moment. The metadata collection efforts just enable people to identify individuals more efficiently. That data can be used for any purpose — good or bad, and if sufficient protections are not put into place the bad part WILL happen. That’s the whole point — this all needs to have proper judicial oversight to prevent abuses.

            It is probably one million times more likely that you will become a victim of government abuse than the likelihood of you ever even seeing a terrorist in person — much less getting hurt or killed by one. Think of it like this:

            You and I need to cross a busy highway in a rainstorm. You are concerned about getting struck by lightening, so you stay as low to the ground as possible to lesson your chances. I, on the other hand, care more about getting squashed by traffic and am willing to take my chances by using the overhead foot-bridge. Guess who is more likely to survive crossing the highway?

            Now add this: You are convinced your method of crossing the highway is correct, therefore you try to force me to do the same despite my objection. The result? Both of us get transported to the hospital in order to surgically remove my foot from your ass.

          • plc97477

            Any one who lived through the baby bush years has had cause to distrust the government but that doesn’t mean we lose ours minds also.

          • WhutHeSaid

            I think that trusting the government works better when that trust has enforceable safeguards behind it. I don’t think that the government is out to get us, but I do believe that we need judicial oversight to guard against those few bad apples in the government who will abuse their power if it doesn’t have checks and balances.

          • Independent1

            In one of your posts, you mentioned that NSA doesn’t need to store data because they can monitor the data in real time. Maybe you can explain to me how a few hundred or maybe a thousand analysts would monitor in real time 2.4 billion phone calls per day?? That would have to be some awful quick speed monitoring. And you keep alluding to the fact that you’re conerned that some of these NSA folks might do bad things with the information they hear – a number posters have implied the same thing – but I can’t remember seeing any news items about people accusing the government of using private information gleaned from their phone conversations in a detrimental way toward them. And given our 24/7 media that would explode any such suggestion into a Fox News equivalent of Fox’s Benghazi nightmare – I guess I have to be very doubtful about the reality of what you’re being paranoid about. Can you remind me of something I’ve missed in the way of news about our government making someones life a nightmare because of what they said over the phone???

            The only instance of something akin to that that I’m aware of are that on occasion a traveler will discover when trying to fly that somehow their name has been added to a no-fly list – but I’m not sure that anyone has been able to pin the reason for that down to NSA monitoring their phone calls. And if you really think that NSA can monitor with any degree of success whatsoever, 2.4 billion phone calls per day real-time – you have to be as purely delusional as Snowden.

          • WhutHeSaid

            Your way of thinking about this issue really isn’t rooted in reality. You seem to assume that the government is full of wonderful people who lack the capability to commit crimes or just plain bad behavior against other people. Several times you’ve made this naive pie-in-the-sky reference to an idea that the government doing anything bad against it’s own citizens is just unimaginable.

            Are you for real? Did you just fall off the turnip wagon?

            Government is comprised of people. People will eventually do whatever they feel they can get away with. That’s why we need laws in the first place.

            Do you have any proof that posting your SSN and bank account information online will lead to anyone misusing it, or does common sense and prudence tell you this is a bad idea? This is the same principal: Don’t allow information that may be misused to end up where others can (and eventually will) misuse it. Just don’t do it unless it’s absolutely necessary and then only with as many safeguards against misuse as possible.

            It’s hard to believe that a person could survive into adulthood who hasn’t heard about illegal wiretapping by the government and others. Did you hear that? ILLEGAL WIRETAPPING. Even when it’s clearly illegal, we still find cases where the government engages in it. What you propose is to just let them cull whatever information they want with no legal safeguards whatever.

            I’m not even going to try to try to convince you about the technical feasibility of wiretapping operations because you are stuck in a dream-world where you don’t seem to understand a very basic tenet of human behavior, If you can’t find out about misuse of personal information by government the world over (including the US), well — you just aren’t looking. Try looking up the Quantico Circuit case.

          • Dana Es

            It’s interesting to me how so many people are obsessed with the idea of the government getting information on them when already their banks, credit card companies, Internet provider, their places of employment, their health care providers, and just about every business they deal with has tons of info on them and some of it not even accurate. Just like my husband and I didn’t run out to buy more guns when a Democratic president was elected, after the killings of innocent children, etc., I’m also not concerned about the possibility of my privacy being invaded. For one thing, it already has been, just like nearly everyone else’s has. We willingly give out information about ourselves all the time and most of that information is accessible to anyone with hacking skills. Too late to close that barn door now. We live with it.

            I don’t do anything illegal. If any of my calls or e-mail messages accidentally got looked at by someone in the government, they’d probably rate a big ho-hum. If occasionally innocent communications get viewed, but, in the bigger picture, planned harm against the citizens of this country is detected and stopped, in my eyes it’s worth it. Isn’t there an expression in the military about sacrificing one for the good of many? So, if there’s a slight chance that a few communications get checked accidentally by a government program but that minute invasion of privacy is part of something that can prevent something big and bad from happening, it’s a very small sacrifice for the good of the many.

            If a regular person hacked into my bank account or hid a camera in a dressing room or restroom and then posted the photos on the Internet, then I’d be ticked off. If there’s a tiny chance any of my communications might be accidentally viewed in the process of a U.S. government program set up to mostly protect us, I’m okay with it. My life is clean and, though I read 1984, I just don’t have any Big Brother paranoia.

            It’s a beautiful day today. Go outside. Enjoy it.

          • WhutHeSaid

            I’m very happy to hear that you aren’t paranoid. Please post your SSN and bank account numbers here the next time you are sharing. I promise I’ll only look at them if they’re somehow related to terrorism. You’ll feel ever so much safer!

            Dolt.

          • Dana Es

            If that’s the kind of info you’re concerned about the government having, the IRS and Social Security Administration, possibly any employers you’ve ever had or any place where you use Direct Deposit, your Credit Card company, maybe businesses where you have accounts, and probably others that I’m not thinking of already have that information.

            You’re the one who’s apparently feeling unsafe and “afeared” of the government, not me.

            And I hope you noticed that my comments were MY thoughts and just as you’re allowed to have yours, I’m also allowed to have mine. Mine were also put forth in a polite manner and I didn’t call you or anyone else any names. I even suggested any readers enjoy what was a beautiful day. Sad that you couldn’t work up the same respect for me.

          • WhutHeSaid

            I’m afraid that you’ll just have to settle for calling 1-800-BOO-HOO. I’m rapidly tiring of hearing stupidity on this issue.

            I notice that you didn’t post your SSN or bank account number(s) — why not? Are you ‘afeared’? Are you paranoid? Are you really too stupid to understand why the 4th Amendment exists because your butt has been pampered all of your life?

            If I choose to give information to a government agency or business, there are laws in place to protect my privacy and legal recourse if they don’t. You just want everyone to drop their bloomers and grab their ankles for anyone working for the government.

            For people who would try to force me to give up my rights as an American citizen over my protests, I hope they have a shitty day.

            I hope I’ve been clear.

          • Dana Es

            You defend your 4th Amendment rights so ferociously (And rudely) but at the same time have little respect for others exercising their 1st Amendment rights.

            I have no problem with honest debate and differences of opinion but too often those differences of opinion seem to turn into attacks, just as you did with me and everyone else who didn’t see things exactly the way you do. The ugliness that shows up too often on Comment Boards is the reason that I walk away from them at least a few times a year. So many insults, people sinking so low, and nothing constructive, well, sometimes hanging around just ain’t worth it.

            I’m sorry you chose to miss what was indeed a beautiful day.

          • WhutHeSaid

            Yep, I get downright rude when people like you try to impose their views upon my rights — especially in a condescending manner. I will offer no apology — you don’t deserve one.

            Unlike you, in no way did I attempt to infringe upon your rights in any way. I did not try to prevent you from expressing your opinion in the least. I merely showed my disagreement and contempt for those like you who are willing to so freely infringe upon my rights over my objection.

            Once again — you did not post your SSN or bank account number(s), and of course we all know the reason why. That’s the whole point here. You are also a hypocrite, and you avoided that point entirely because it illustrates just how wrong you are.

            I suppose you would raise a stink into the high heavens if any TSA agent posted your base ass on the Web, even though I’m sure that it’s already been seen by quite a few people. Isn’t that your argument? Since people have already seen your ass you should have no trouble when others feel they can do what they want with your private pictures. There’s nothing secret or criminal about your bare ass, right? It’s not a terrorist ass hiding a bomb, so what do you have to hide? According to you, since your ass has been displayed to other people it shouldn’t be any trouble if thousands of strangers get to see it as well whether you like it or not. Please feel free to demonstrate how you believe your own arguments by posting a few photos of your bare ass in this forum.

            Don’t even try to pretend that you were polite or thoughtful. You come off as smarmy and pompous — not thoughtful or polite. And you show scorn and contempt for my rights as an American citizen — that makes you a fair target for scorn yourself. Sometimes it’s not how you say it, it’s what you say. Your intent against my rights is uglier than any racial insult that I’ve had directed at me in any forum. Perhaps that’s the real reason that you need to walk away from message boards. Try paying attention to what the other party is saying back to you — that sometimes helps.

          • Dana Es

            Good grief. I don’t even know why I’m bothering to respond to you again. You don’t want an intelligent conversation or actual debate. You want a down and dirty fight and I’m making you look bad by not giving it to you.

            Let me point out something. A lot of what you’re saying doesn’t even make sense. I’m not IMPOSING my view on your rights or anything else. I’m exercising MY rights by giving my view and you appear to be imposing your view on my right to do that. Let’s be clear on who’s imposing on what.

            Your jump to “bare ass” makes me question your maturity level.

            Tell me what would be “polite and thoughtful” to you? Am I supposed to say ” Oh, WHUT, please forgive me for not spending time worrying about anyone in government possibly catching a snippet of one of my phone calls or e-mails. I’m so wrong and sorry if I offended you.” Not going to happen.

            Pompous and smarmy kind of contradict each other. A high class look down on people as opposed to low class digs. If you knew me, you’d know I’m not either. Scorn and contempt for YOUR rights simply because I used my rights to state MY opinion? Are you saying that anyone who doesn’t fall into step behind you is harming your rights in some way? How? And what exactly is my “intent” against your rights?

            Go back and re-read what you wrote and see if it honestly doesn’t sound like the thoughts of a child with a wounded ego –You didn’t jump to completely agree with me therefore you’re disagreeing, which is the same thing as saying I’m wrong and I can’t stand being wrong. From what you’ve written, it seems like that way of thinking could belong to you.

            I’m done with this idiotic back and forth. You can say what you want, put whatever spin you want to on anything I wrote or what you imagine my intent to be. On a good deal of it, you’d be wrong — are you sure you can handle it?

          • WhutHeSaid

            Before any honest and intelligent debate could possibly take place you’d need to jettison your mistaken air of superiority, pay attention to what’s being said to you (rather than merely waiting for your turn), and honestly examine your own arguments. I’m not willing to bet that you’re capable of doing this, but perhaps you can prove me wrong on this point.

            ‘Pompous’ and ‘smarmy’ are not contradictory terms. Avail yourself of one of the many online dictionaries that are readily accessible to anyone with an Internet connection. If you believe that ‘smarmy’ means ‘low class digs’, then a little research will do you good. Once you understand that you’re in error you can impress me mightily by admitting it.

            Regarding your statement ‘Your jump to “bare ass” makes me question your maturity level.':

            Perhaps you should read your own preceding post where you said “If a regular person hacked into my bank account or hid a camera in a dressing room or restroom and then posted the photos on the Internet, then I’d be ticked off”.

            It looks to me like YOU are the one who referenced nudity first, not me. I merely expanded upon your own topic to illustrate how completely ridiculous it was (and is). Once again, another of your claims quickly debunked. Let’s see you admit this one too (perhaps you can also add a snide remark about your own maturity level for good measure).

            If you really believe that you wounded my ego then you simply can’t read with comprehension. If that’s the best you can do when debating an adult who challenges your arguments, then I’d suggest that you return to contemplating your navel.

            There’s your challenge. If you can admit to being wrong about the points I outlined above, then an honest debate might just be possible. If not, then you clearly aren’t interested in and/or capable of an honest debate and any discussion would just be a waste of time.

          • plc97477

            I am starting to get a little worried. I consider some of the posters here pretty intelligent and a few are starting to sound as paranoid as the repugs.

          • Independent1

            Yeah! Especially WhutHeSaid.

          • WhutHeSaid

            I’ll bet you both believe that privacy, warrants, and the 4th Amendment are stupid, Republican ideas. When many people who are otherwise ‘intelligent’ (I’m guessing that means agreeing with your views) start appearing on the other side of an issue, perhaps it’s time for you to reevaluate your position.

            Let me clue you both in to a little something:

            Privacy and protection from unreasonable search and seizure are fundamental rights in the US. I abhor most Republican positions today, and I post against them all the time. But this issue is so basic and so important to me that if I was ever forced to vote between either of you and a Republican who believed in the 4th Amendment, I’d be forced to vote for the Republican. Does that help you with your ‘intelligent’ take on this issue?

          • WhutHeSaid

            I’ll bet you both believe that privacy, warrants, and the 4th Amendment are stupid, Republican ideas. When many people who are otherwise ‘intelligent’ (I’m guessing that means agreeing with your views) start appearing on the other side of an issue, perhaps it’s time for you to reevaluate your position.

            Let me clue you both in to a little something:

            Privacy and protection from unreasonable search and seizure are fundamental rights in the US. I abhor most Republican positions today, and I post against them all the time. But this issue is so basic and so important to me that if I was ever forced to vote between either of you and a Republican who believed in the 4th Amendment, I’d be forced to vote for the Republican. Does that help you with your ‘intelligent’ take on this issue?

          • plc97477

            Do yourself a favor. Go to your favorite search engine and type in your name. If you look closely you can find what size underwear you wear. So you are saying it is okay for Sears to know everything about you up to and including the placement of any moles you may have but it is not okay for the government to know how many times you call Pakistan.

          • WhutHeSaid

            I’m saying that if I choose to keep my underwear size private I just won’t give out that information. You may give yours out if you wish – including an autographed pair of your bloomers if that makes you happy. Neither of us have the right to force our choices on others without justification. In case you were wondering, that’s how this ‘freedom’ thingy works.

          • Sand_Cat

            Still say they are working to reach the point when they can, and that they will – or close enough as to make no difference – as soon as they can. Not trying to fight, and certainly not trying to take the side of the Republican hypocrites – who, after all, are those most likely to try to hasten the expansion of capability – but they are certainly trying and will do so until they reach that point.

          • CrankyToo

            Concur. Moreover, the idea that the NSA could store all that data for any length of time, even with yobibytes of capacity and extreme compression cabability seems pretty far-fetched to me.

          • WhutHeSaid

            That’s only because you don’t know what you are talking about. It’s perfectly feasible. Personal data doesn’t need to be stored for any great length of time to be abused, or even at all.

          • CrankyToo

            You seem to have missed my point, Squire. I didn’t say they couldn’t store that much data for a short period of time. I said they couldn’t store that much data for “any great length of time.” Nor did I suggest that any data they gathered and stored for any duration mightn’t be abused. Pay attention.

          • WhutHeSaid

            I didn’t miss your point. The capability to store a large part or even all of the calls in the US does exist. You claimed that the idea that the NSA “could store all that data for any length of time” was far-fetched. It’s unlikely to be used that way, but with the massive resources available to the US government it is perfectly feasible to store it for long enough to abuse it — and that’s what counts.

            My point is that even though the government is unlikely to spend the resources necessary to do it, it is possible. Also, it is just as easy to target things besides terrorism for closer scrutiny, and building the infrastructure and policies for this type of snooping will eventually be abused by somebody unless we have significant safeguards to go along with it. It is unlikely that the government will search every single home in the country as well, yet we still have safeguards built into the system to prevent such a thing without just cause. How is this any different?

          • Independent1

            I couldn’t agree more.

          • charleo1

            I have always contended this security apparatus is a lot
            easier to set up, than dismantle. Who wants to be the
            Party that shuts down a program over at NSA? Then, we
            get tagged with an operation for whatever reason, we
            missed. The politics are awful. Suddenly, the Democrats
            are too soft on terrorists, and can’t protect the American
            public. Or, vice versa. All considered, it’s probably smarter politically to suffer the slings, and arrows from the Libertarians, on the Right, and the Michael Moore types on the Left. Just from a purely political position, it seems to me, if I’m President,
            I leave it pretty much alone. Eventually, all this stuff makes
            it’s way through the judicial system. If SCOTUS finds this
            passes muster, but that other thing, is out. It takes the politics out of it. Which I think needs to happen, before anything
            gets discarded, or changed in a major way.

          • FredAppell

            As much as I disagree with the PATRIOT Act and Obama’s refusal to dismantle it, you may have hit the nail on the head in the first part of your statement. It may have been a shrewd calculation on Obama’s part because the fact is that if the PATRIOT
            Act were in fact dismantled and we get attacked again, Obama would be done and so would the Democratic party.

          • charleo1

            We had a bunch attack one of the embassy buildings in
            Benghazi Libya, and before the smoke cleared, the GOP
            was hollerin’ “He lied, and people died.” You can imagine
            what they’d be saying, if God forbid,…?

          • FredAppell

            Yes, I can imagine. It seems that they have taken a page right out of the Democratic handbook spewing the same rhetoric that was said about Bush. They’re using the same tactics. I know Obama is far from perfect and I am a bit ticked off at him for my own reasons but the GOP has made it impossible for anyone of reason to govern. Their hypocrisy and obstruction is so blatant,
            it makes it impossible to determine the potential of Obama. We
            may never know because they changed the game.

          • charleo1

            The way I look at it, the Founders, and Framers knew, there
            would always be those who would step beyond the bounds
            laid out in the Constitution, and Bill of Rights. So, they put
            into place this system of checks. and balances. We all know
            this. But over the years, especially in the Legislative Branch,
            they have adopted a number of procedural rules, that by
            themselves, are within the letter of the Constitution, but not
            the spirit of it. The checks and balances were not put in place
            to render the entire second branch of government, mute.
            They have managed to do that all on their own. For example,
            the filibuster is not in the Constitution, nor The Bill of Rights.
            That was added much later. And, was adopted to be used
            very sparingly. When the minority Party felt as if a particular
            bill was extremely bad policy. And the vote count would be
            within, one, or two votes of passing, or being voted down.
            It allowed for the bill to be held up, as the minority Party
            tried to make their case. Then, the bill came to the floor for
            an up, or down vote. In other words, the filibuster was not
            intended to frustrate, or allow the minority to nullify the majority, on legislation they clearly had the votes to pass.
            So, you are exactly right! They changed the game.
            The Founders didn’t get it wrong. Today’s politicians, got
            it wrong.

          • FredAppell

            Well, I’m not really sure what you will think of me for this but I really don’t care what the Constitution says. There have been many laws passed that supposedly are in direct contrast to the Constitution from both party’s since it was written. Even the founders knew that they had to have flexibility in order for the Republic to survive. Some scholars argue quite effectively that the Constitution is not the “Law Of the Land”, it is merely a set of ideals for us to try to live by. Everyone has their own interpretation. Mine is that it is a living document meant to change with the conditions of the times. I see a group of Americans trying their best to ignore the changing times and
            undo all the progress we have made over the past couple of hundred years. Some laws should be abolished because they don’t fit in with today’s realities the same as Americans in the future may have to change some of the laws we make today to fit their conditions. Our problem is that trust has been replaced by suspicion and innuendo, commonsense replaced by paranoia and so on. I think what we are experiencing here
            is a Rainbow Revolution, the big questions are, who is behind it and how long will it remain bloodless and what is the end game going to look like? These are the things that I think about everyday and it often tries to consume me but I resist because my mind has already been to some very dark places, I refuse to be that person ever again. Unfortunately, some of the trolls on here tend to test my mettle. The bottom line is our story is still being written, it will never be completed because it wasn’t designed to be. Turn the page my friend.

          • idamag

            There are things that I disagree with, that Obama has done, but I don’t spew hatred so bitter as to resemble the fascists. If he would be allowed to govern, he might be one of the greatest presidents we ever had. However, he is not allowed to govern. He needs to take every idea to the people and let the people know who is destroying democracy from within.

          • neeceoooo

            The bottom line is they want him to fail……… Good morning friend.

          • FredAppell

            Me too. I don’t even get nasty when referring to Bush/Cheney or when I don’t like someone’s particular comment. If we spew that kind of hatred in retaliation then it never ends. Also, there is the
            personal cost involved, I don’t know if you are particularly religious or spiritual, if you are then you are familiar with the concept of poisoning one’s own soul with negativity. We do that when we carry around and project hate. Life is stressful enough, who the needs the added grief? You mentioned that Obama needs to take his idea’s to the people. He has been trying to do that very thing, a few years ago a young friend of mine was telling me that Obama has a website which spells out all his objectives for everyone to read, that has largely been ignored as we all have witnessed. He gets accused of lying or whining or not being a leader, all crap in my eyes. He can’t win but he should stop trying to please those whom will never except him anyway.

          • plc97477

            He has done a great job of at least keeping it legal by getting court orders for what needs them.

          • plc97477

            I agree with everything you posted. I would also like to point out that repugs and dems are very different. About 20 or so years ago a university did a study in which they found that repugs will vote for anyone running as a repug but dems are a bit more picky. We don’t like dirty politics or name calling. Sure a few of us dems are so far left a few names are okay but the large portion of the dem voters will turn away from a politician who seems too partisan. I am sorry so many of our kind are like that but it makes it hard for dems to be everything to everyone and still stay in office.

          • mike

            Now that is funny!!! Durbin, Leahy, Pelosi, Van Hollen, Reid, Conyer, Cummings, Schumer, Wasserman Schultz, Boxer, Levin, etc., are not too partisan? Give me a break!!!

            What universe do you live in?? Sorry, I already know the answer.

          • Sand_Cat

            Finished your assignment, little man?
            Too busy making nonsensical comments, most likely.

          • mike

            How’s the litter box. Smells bad, looks bad, and fits you perfectly.

            How’s your leader doing??? Ratings dropping, majority of people no longer TRUST him, IRS scandal growing-now we find $70 million bonuses and $50 million conferences, AP saying leads drying up, which bodes badly for Obama and press relationship, Benghazi coverup, EPA mancave, Obamacare-does any believe heathcare costs will not rise dramatically? NSA prism and data mining, Debt rising, deficit dropping but will go back up by 2015-16. It just keeps going.
            A leaderless administration. Chris Matthew: ship with its engine off!!!!

            Your assignment is to prove the above incorrect. But you can’t, so sorry little Putty Kat.

        • John Pigg

          Props to you for voting 3rd Party.

          I didn’t agree with Stein but I really liked her. I believe most of your criticisms are fair, and honest.

      • Mark Forsyth

        Great post.I can’t help saying in the most adamant,strident,and vehement terms possible that I really didn’t care for Bush either.

        • charleo1

          That was a pretty lame way to put it. Yours is much better.
          So then, I think I’ll agree with your comment. In the most
          strident, and vehement, terms possible!

          • Mark Forsyth

            No criticism of you intended and your concensus is appreciated.

          • plc97477

            I would like to add my agreement to yours in the most strident and vehement terms.

          • Dana Es

            Can I agree without being strident and vehement, you know, maybe just saying that I agree?!

      • Fern Woodfork

        And I Totally Agree With You Too My Friend!! :-)

      • plc97477

        I have the same opinion but I can say why I do. cheney said after the 8 years from hell that toward the end baby bush stopped following his rules. cheney was very upset by his doing that.

      • labrown69

        It is more than just conservatism that many voters did not expect. It is his corruption. Not one single prosecution of bank fraud from Eric Holder who serves at Obama’s pleasure. Even Reagan indicted 1200 banksters over a much lesser fraud. Millions of Americans have had their homes stolen in violation of existing law by banks who should have gone bankrupt and yet not one prosecution. This has O to do with Republican obstructionism. Being middle of the road is one thing. Being complicit in criminality is quite another.

    • TZToronto

      That fact is that, as far as Republicans are concerned, President Obama is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. If he supports what the NSA is doing, he’s a tyrant; if he doesn’t support it, he’s weak on terrorism. If there is a middle ground on which Republicans would support President Obama, I don’t know what it might be.

      • plc97477

        There is no way the repugs will ever support anything Obama does.

    • CrankyToo

      Your perspective is not only dead plumb correct, it’s masterly conveyed. Two thumbs up, Sand_Cat!

    • labrown69

      OK, so “Bush and Cheney are the worst ever” and Carter was a disaster for the country also by every criterion imaginable so if we stipulate that Bush and Cheney were “the worst” and Obama makes Jimmy Carter look like Alexander the Great what the hell is everyone on this page celebrating? I used to ride horses next door to a Turkey farm and if you made a gobbbling noise like a Turkey hundreds of them would beging gobbling. The same happens here. Someone throws meat into the cage …”Is Obama like Bush and Cheney” and then a bunch of low information voters with limited intellectual capacity and the fervor of fan clubbers go nuts only instead of all “gobbling” in unision they beat their gums at each other about how wonderful this president is even though he is the best friend the financial services industry has ever had short of possibly Bush alone, has escalated the war in Afghanistan exponentially, has beefed up the Patriot Act and domestic spying and is ready to sell out social security and medicare …but he’s a Democrat … “he must be good” … after all he is better than Bush. Where’s the meat? Sorry .. you devoured it all.

  • labrown69

    Why even ask the question? There is not a writer on this site that does not kiss Obama’s worthless ass until it’s chapped. That banks can keep stealing faster than any economy can produce, Eric Holder can keep his job no matter how many times he runs the ship of state onto the rocks, we can arm Al Qaeda in Syria and help the Muslim Brotherhood build a world wide caliphate, overlook Mosques while spying on troops who come home with PTSD because Obama killed more people his first 4 years in office than Bush did in 8 and writers like these would sill be licking his ass.

    • sleepvark

      Are you from Bizzarroworld? You sound as if your face consists of white fractals.

      • labrown69

        We can’t see your face because it is buried on Obama’s asshole

    • tax payer

      He has enough friends he invites to the White House to do that to him. rotsaC rings a bell.

    • Mark Forsyth

      You would do well to stop licking your own,it is killing off what few brain cells you have left.

    • Independent1

      “Obama killed more people in his first 4 years….” What utter garbage. Let’s see you top this in the utter depravity showed by Bush and Cheney:

      Were so hellbent on starting a war in Iraq such that they had General Frank making out an Iraq attack plan within 2 weeks of walking into the Whitehouse.

      Were so hellbent on starting a war in Iraq that they totally ignored any intelligence that said there was no reason for the war, including information presented to them personally by George Tenet long before they started the Iraq war that IRAQ DID NOT HAVE WMDs and did not play any roll in the 9/11 attack; thereby causing them to lie and start an unfounded war that killed over 4,000 American soldiers and countless Iraqi’s

      They totally ignored 7 warnings from the CIA in less than 3 months (4/30/01 to 8/6/01) that al Qaeda was planning an IMMINENT ATTACK on the homeland, refusing to grant the CIA permission to focus on stopping the attack, resulting in the 9/11 attack that ended up killing around 3,000 Americans.

      Although knowing that America was at war, went ahead anyway with two unfunded tax cuts that favored mostly themselves and their rich buddies, which over Bush’s 8 year term required Bush to cut his annual budgets for programs that the states depended on (like interstate highway maintenance, Medicaid and other programs that helped the poos), which not only ended up driving a number of states to the verge of bankruptcy but also drove America’s debt about 10 trillion dollars higher when you include the increases to the deficit caused by the Great Recession that their administration allowed to happen.

      At the beheast of the drug lobby, pressed for the Medicare drug benefit which Bush signed even though he knew it was unfunded and would add to the deficit even until today. And ensured that Congress included in the legislation a provision that the government couldn’t negotiate for lower drug costs to allow the drug cartel to ripoff of Americans by the most money possible.

      On pressure from the financial industry, tried to get a stock market option added to Social Security which they knew full well would put the retirements of millions of workers at jeopardy, just so the financial industry could also rip off Americans. Fortunately ,this attempt to ripoff taxpayers was defeated.

      Did vitually nothing to provide adequate security for America’s overseas consulate and embassies, resulting in 14 attacks during hi 8 years in office (12 of them deadly) that killed more than 78 people, 18 of them in one consulate (Karachi Pakistan) which included an American diplomat. And when added to gether with his failure to prevent the 9/11 attack on the homeland because of his deliberately refusing to try and stop it, ended up with more than 3,078 people killed by terrorist attacks more than 3,000 of them Americans.

      Do I need to go on??? There’s no way you can even come close to the total demonstration of absolutely purposeful depravity that is indicated by what I’ve already recorded.

      • labrown69

        You people are the type that see a room full of horse shit and say “there must be a pony in here somewhere” LMAO OK, Obama is MARGINALLY BETTER than Bush in most ways. If that is good enough for you, good riddance. Iraq didn’t have WMDs but apparently Syria does now? …. but …. but …. but ….. that’s different? Even the despicable Romney might have done a better job of addressing the bank fraud that is preventing a real recovery and robbing millions of Americans of their homes. Outside of siding with a woman’s reproductive rights and throwing bones to the LGBT community, after the polls showed it to be beneficial, the only thing Obama has done right is to make a bumper sticker that peels off my car easily.

        • Independent1

          I’ve come to the conclusion that you’re just a big JOKE!!! To even suggest that there isn’t anything different between what Bush and Cheney did and what Obama has done is totally MORONIC!!!

          In 8 years, Bush ran up the deficit by almost 10 trillion dollars and left office by passing Obama a budget with 1.6 trillion in deficit spending. In 4 years Obama has reduced deficit spending faster than any president since Truman back just before WWII and has cut Bush’s 1,6 trillion/yr in spending by more than 1/2 – the CBO is projecting deficit spending for 2013 will be around 685 billion.

          Over 8 years, Bush presided over the most lackluster economy since the Big Depression with about the worst job creation record since the Big D. – creating only an average of 31,000 jobs/mo over 8 years and leaving office with the stock market having lost the most wealth for the nation in history. In contrast, Obama’s policies have resulted in over 40 consecutive months of job growth -with every month’s job growth exceeding any month while Bush was in office and in fact creating more jobs over the past 6 months than Bush created in any 2 year period.

          Bush got us into two wars, one by ignoring 7 warnings that a terrorst attack was imminent, and the other based on lies and distortions – wars that resulted in the deaths of over 5,000 American soldiers and over 100,000 iraqi civilions. Obama on the other hand has backed us out of the war in Iraq (arguably saving at least hundreds of American soldiers’ lives) and is close to working us out of Aghanistan which will save more American soldiers’ lives.

          Everything Bush did was to favor the rich – from the unwarranted/unfunded tax cuts, to the unfunded Medicare drug benefit giveaway to the drug industry, to the starting of two wars so his rich buddies in the defense industry could rip off taxpayers for trillions of dollars by overcharging and defrauding the government in multiple ways in providing their services in the war effort (Haliburton was caught charging $100/gal for gas to fill up jeeps). In contrast, Obama started a war on fraud in t he Defense and Healthcare sectors which has brought back to the US treasury more fraudulently charged monies (billions) than Clinton and the 2 Bushes combined.

          Bush’s lax of oversight on the economy and relaxing of reguglation allowed the economy to run amok, ending up in t he BIG RECESSION which cost investors more money by far than was lost during the stock market crash of 1929, while in contrast, Obama followed through on the Auto Bailout, which no only kept 1.5 million jobs in America (preventing Romney and his hedgefund buddies from buying out GM and Chrysler and shipping the industry to China) but has also resulted in the US treasury collecting well over 135 billion over the past 3 years in tax monies from auto industry related companies and workers which would have been lost had the industry gone bankrupt as Romney had pleaded for (so he could destroy it)

          Do you need more comparisons to see how asinine your comment is??? Because I’m just getting started – you probably don’t even know the half of the evil and distruction that Bush and Cheney created in America.

          • labrown69

            You are too stupid to “come to a conclusion”!

          • neeceoooo

            So rather than a discussion on the facts, you end it by calling names, real grownup reaction.

          • labrown69

            You can not discuss facts with those who refuse to know what they are and do not believe it once they learn what they are. Nobody on this site understands the foreclosure fraud situation and the fact that Obama and Holder could have singled handedly saved millions of homes but instead chose to be part of the problem, not only refusing to enforce existing law but obstructing those who tried. This has nothing to do with Congress but you will hear inane blather about congress and Bush and every excuse in the world because they are in a state of paralysis when it comes to seeing the real Obama and the real Holder.

        • Allan Richardson

          Bush was privately telling his supporters BEFORE THE 2000 ELECTION that he wanted to finish the Iraq war his dad started; refused to look at intelligence on OBL that the Clinton people had all ready to pass on to him; had an Iraq invasion plan (but NOT an Afghan or Saudi invasion plan) prepared a week after taking office; and shifted the public’s attention from where the Taliban and OBL really WERE to where they WERE NOT, in order to get the authority to invade Iraq “after trying all other avenues first;” did NOT try other avenues, making up false intelligence instead, and having the patriotic agents who SHOWED it to be false “outed” and put in danger; then stopped the hunt for OBL just when they were about to catch him, and put all their attention on Iraq.

          By contrast, Obama has been very reluctant to enter into a war in Syria, and has endured much criticism from the right, and even from the “moderate” Senator “Bomb, bomb Iran” McCain, before finally, reluctantly, agreeing to supply arms to the Syrian rebels (hopefully the RIGHT rebels).

          And on the Patriot Act front, no politician of either party will dismantle the NSA spy apparatus until the American people prove, with a vote, that they would ACTUALLY rather risk some terrorists attacks than be eavesdropped. It is possible that Obama is actually trying to get the people to REALIZE that criticizing a President for not catching a terrorist in time is actually PERMISSION to spy on all of us.

          And it seems awfully strange to me that a junior level employee of a contract firm for the NSA had access to all of that information, AND was able to get a newspaper in the UK which did not even know his name to publish it, AND went to China. Wasn’t he concerned that the Chinese government would learn things that would harm America for them to know? Unless he was SET UP to deliver disinformation, and possibly computer malware (such as Will Smith delivered to the alien mothership in “Independence Day”), to the Chinese internet? Mr. Xi, please ignore this message; this could not possibly be true; go ahead and download his files, OK?

          • plc97477

            Also his (snowden) grandiose bragging seems a bit hard to believe.

    • WhutHeSaid

      It’s because of posts like yours that whatever things Obama shouldn’t be doing go largely ignored. Because bitter bigots attack Obama about anything and everything, and are willing to cause any kind of damage just to obstruct his success, most people will give him a pass just to spite the vile and despicable Tea Bigots.

      People will listen to real criticism — even if they don’t necessarily agree with it. When confronted by a hysterical attack post like yours, however, the tendency is to give Obama more credit for having to endure hysterical and bigoted nut-bags on a daily basis. In short, posts like yours have the exact opposite effect to what you intended because it pisses people off.

      • labrown69

        While you rail about Tea Bigots you are getting screwed big time by your own boy. There will always be someone “worse”. Sadly that has become the standard of the American left. Opting for the best liar and defending him blindly for another 4 years because after all …there will always be “someone worse”.

        • labrown69

          AND STILL THE CORRUPT OBAMA CLINGS TO THE CORRUPT ERIC HOLDER FOR DEAR LIFE. WHAT DOES HOLDER HAVE ON HIM? NOT ONE INDICTMENT IN 6 YEARS?

          Bank of America workers lied to home owners: (Holder’s homies?)

          (Reuters) – Six former Bank of America Corp (BAC.N) employees have alleged that the bank deliberately denied eligible home owners loan modifications and lied to them about the status of their mortgage payments and documents.

          The bank allegedly used these tactics to shepherd
          homeowners into foreclosure, as well as in-house loan modifications. Both yielded the bank more profits than the government-sponsored Home Affordable Modification Program, according to documents recently filed
          as part of a lawsuit in Massachusetts federal court.
          The former employees, who worked at Bank of America
          centers throughout the United States, said the bank rewarded customer service representatives who foreclosed on homes with cash bonuses and gift cards to retail stores such as Target Corp (TGT.N) and Bed Bath & Beyond Inc (BBBY.O).

          http://finance.yahoo.com/news/former-bank-america-workers-allege-214159027.html

          • labrown69

            JUSTICE, OBAMA AND HOLDER STYLE: –> Aint they great? Wow they are better than Bush. Let’s have a party!

            Nearly 65,000 Arizonans who lost homes to foreclosure from 2008 to 2011 to get $1,480 checks.

            PHOENIX (AP) — Nearly 65,000
            Arizonans who lost their homes to foreclosure from 2008 to 2011 will receive checks for $1,480 this summer.

            Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne says it’s part of a settlement with the nation’s five largest banks. The $96.5 million settlement involved Ally/GMAC, Bank of America Corp., Citi, JPMorgan Chase & Co., and Wells Fargo& Co.
            Horne announced the restitution payments at a news conference Thursday in Phoenix.

            GUESS THE AP WILL KNOW BETTER THAN TO PRINT SH*T LIKE THIS ONCE THE DOJ GETS FINISHED SPYING ON THEM. $1400 FOR HAVING YOUR HOME STOLEN BY VILLAINS WITH THE FULL SUPPORT OF THE ADMINISTRATION! And here you folks sit having a circle jerk?

            Arizona was among the hardest hit states by the mortgage crisis.

            It’s getting a 7.6 percent share of a $25 billion National Mortgage Settlement that was announced in February 2012.

            That’s the third largest share behind California and Florida.

          • rustacus21

            Ok, ok ENUFF! Are we to assume U DON’T know that all the policies & personnel (for the most part) are held over from the 2001-2009 administration? That means these policy actions & people administering them are CONSERVATIVES. In THIS administration. As U don’t stay current w/events, U don’t realize the period of corruption, fraud, theft, incompetence, ineptitude, greed, self-enrichment (after leaving the administration), etc., has ALREADY PASSED, leaving U woefully behind the times & caught in a time-warp dominated by anger, frustration & confusion over being taken advantage of by the same conservatives U voted for!!! THIS is the issue being discussed – what the H#&L are we still doing w/such a policy (w/its genesis – AGAIN – w/the 2001-2009 administration) still in action?! ‘Fast & Furious’ (speaking of) was ‘Operation Wide Receiver’ in 2006. Look it up when U have some free time. While U’r at it, look up Edward DeMarco’s bio & why, during THIS administration, he had the latitude to continue THROWING Arizonan’s, Texans, Michiganians, New Yorkers, etc., out of homes that they were originally ‘defrauded’ into entering into ‘fraudulent’ mortgages – circa 2004 & going forward, culminating in an ongoing nitemare – THIS administration?! Answer any 1 of the above, U can understand THIS President is doing the best he can against conservatives U put in office, who care nothing about U, xcept at election time & how to further manipulate U into hating the only chance U have at getting BACK the nation U ‘profess’ to love so much U’ll disrespect YOUR President – b/c of his… COLOR?!?! B/c his policies are the same as the 2001-2009 administration, so it HAS TO BE b/c he’s Black?! TALK TO ME!!!

          • labrown69

            We have come full circle – everything is Bush’s fault, Obama is a paragon of virtue and he could not have done anything like for instance have his Attorney General prosecute felonies and uphold existing current black letter law … it COULDN’T be Obama’s fault because he is a fucking paragon of virtue .. I am just “behind the times” … SIX YEARS BEHIND to be exact. If you don’t think that bank settlement was railroaded by Holder who used to represent those banks than you are a moron. I have close friend who is an SEC attorney and this administration has quashed every action. They are lap dogs for the financial services industry. I understand that he is just the “poor little President and leader of the free world” but believe me, he is not that powerless even with an obstructionist congress. I just have a much deeper understanding of what is taking place and you are an imbecile, an apologist and a member of a fan club rather than a constituent. TRY READING SOMETHING OTHER THAN THIS CHEER LEADING RAG

          • rustacus21

            I typed out a complete message, but b/c of censorship actions by… whomever, my message – in it’s entirety VANISHED B4 it could post! That’s awfully odd for the “Liberal Press” to treat one of their own in such a way, U think? Clearly, I’m being monitored & SURVEILLED, so as an Obama supporter, it’s his administration that suppresses support in such a way? Anyway, my response was ask U to simply explain to we supporters of the Prez., how anything has changed from ’01 to now? The policies of the current Prez are not at all changed from the ’01-’09 administration. As such, what’s the problem, since only the face in the Oval Office has changed & not the policies – Since 2001 that is…

        • labrown69

          “Things Obama shouldn’t be doing”? That fact that you even think there could be such a thing as anything Obama shouldn’t be doing places you in a league of your own on this site. Let me get this straight … the fact that there are still some bigots in the world is cause to ignore and turn a blind eye to WAR, 6 YEARS OF UNANSWERED BANK FRAUD, SPYING ON THE AMERICAN PUBLIC, CRIMINALIZING FREEDOM OF THE PRESS, FORCING GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS AND CHEAP ADDITIVES LIKE LOW FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP WHICH ARE BANNED IN EUROPE AND MEXICO ON THE ENTIRE POPULATION AND ALLOWING CORPORATIONS WHO FORCE FEED US THAT SHIT TO WRITE YOUR HEALTH CARE BILL? I don’t fu**ing think so!

          • WhutHeSaid

            See? That’s just the type of nutty hyperventilation that makes people reject your message out of hand. You need to calm down, go clean up your trailer a bit, make up with your sister, and come back when you are sober. Your posts make you sound like a redneck goober on a bender.

        • WhutHeSaid

          I don’t defend Obama blindly. For example: I disagree with his policy towards ‘Patriot Act’ type programs, and oppose expansion of government snooping without proper judicial oversight. But I do indeed believe that his policies even in this area are better than some of the alternatives.

          Aside from your ‘best liar’ comment, you might have some points that quite a few people could agree with. Sadly, your habit of behaving like a hysterical Tea-Nut-Bigot just pisses people off and makes them want to reject your message due to the behavior of the messenger.

    • Sand_Cat

      Wow, you really are delusional. Add up all the deaths from Obama and multiply by two, and you’re still not likely even close to the count from 9/11 alone, never mind the 4000+ Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who died to install a new ally for Iran and Syria to replace their bitter enemy.

      Why don’t you stop making a fool of yourself? It’s no longer even funny.

      • labrown69

        How does the administration’s asshole taste? Lick on!

        HERE is what your fearless leader is doing. He is manufacturing a war on terror and you are too stupid to realize it. It’s OK if a liberal murders civilians. After all, he’s not Bush .. he must be good. YOU MUST BE SO PROUD.

        US bomb blunder kills 30 at Afghan wedding

        30 killed in Afghan Wedding Party; U.S. Bomb Missed Target Submitted by Liberty89 on Tue, 04/16/2013 – 09:21

        Just another day in Afghanistan, at least 120 people were killed or wounded by an errant bomb.

        Will we have a full investigation and will those involved feel the power of justice? Doubtful

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-125820/US-bomb-kills

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jane-Rimmer/100001147101417 Jane Rimmer

          Wait, wait, wait, take a moment to think. Your comment was “HERE is what your fearless leader is doing. He is manufacturing a war on terror and you are too stupid to realize it. It’s OK if a liberal murders civilians. After all, he’s not Bush .. he must be good.”
          You do realize that Bush/Cheney created the term “war on terror”, don’t you? Obama is trying to get rid of that term.

  • Eleanore Whitaker

    No. President Obama isn’t at all in the same league as Bush or Cheney. You have to factor that Bush was installed by the GOP because they knew he was not particularly ambitious when it came to elbow grease of the job of president. That was exactly what Cheney and his GOP gangsters wanted. A president who only needed a little bit of nudging to get him to do their bidding. It was always the more powerful Cheney who lusted after the White House and as the former CEO of Halliburton, he learned a whole lot about power struggles and how to maintain top position without losing ground. Add to that Cheney’s insider political advantage since Nixon and you see easily what really went so wrong with the 8 Bush years…a president who wasn’t, a VP who was and a country at the mercy of a hidden and all too secretive back room Bd. of Directors looking to reinvent the US into the perfect template of a corporation. Didn’t work and now, every card carrying member of the right is hot to regain that upward mobility and corporate winnings.

    What Cheney set into place with his commandeering is now biting the GOP in their butts. They gave Bush “extraordinary executive powers during a time of war” they are now hot to insure this president doesn’t abuse in the way Cheney and Bush did.

    • jmprint

      EXACTLY,
      Thanks

      • labrown69

        I’m waiting for Fern WouldCu*t to break out sobbing becawse somone said mean and nasty tings about her bewoved pwesident. The Fern Wouldc*nt Obama Fan Club! Bank fraud, money laundering, vioating sanctions, spying, torture, Gitmo, no recovery, NO PROBELM! We love him!

        • Fern Woodfork

          FUCK YOU !! ASSHOLE TROLL WE ALL READY HAD THIS DANCE BEFORE!! You Like Sucking Brown Stuff Out Of Koch Brothers Asses So Go Back And Finnish Ass Kissing You Pussy Ass Punk!!

          • labrown69

            You kiss children with that mouth?

          • Fern Woodfork

            FUCK YOU Shit Sucking Troll!! You Seem To Like Getting Cussed Out That’s Why You Keep Coming Back For More!! Duh ASSHOLE

          • labrown69

            Wow, a venereal disease in a dress.

          • Fern Woodfork

            Yes Your Mother Is Venereal Disease In Dress!! I’m Wondering How Your Ass Alive She Should Had Aborted Your Ignorant Lying Shit Sucking Ass!! Now Go Fuck Yourself!! TROLL

          • labrown69

            Spreading your legs for all those illegal aliens who paid you in pesos and then wanted their money back has left you bitter Fern. They really shouldn’t have used that cattle prod on your private parts … ooops, I forgot … you HAVE NO “private parts”… they are all public.

          • Fern Woodfork

            I’m A Nurse BITCH!! Now Your Mother Will Be Mad That You Telling All Her Secrets!! LOL GO FUCK YOURSELF ASS SUCKING TROLL!!!

          • labrown69

            You are no nurse! You’re a whore!

          • labrown69

            http://mugshots.com/US-Counties/Georgia/Gwinnett-County-GA/Fern-Woodfork.50984356.html

            Fern Woodfork
            Unpublish
            Mugshots.com ID: 50984356
            Last Name: WOODFORK
            First Name: FERN
            Middle Name: N/A
            Offender ID: 99445560
            Alias ID: N/A
            Offender ID Display: 0099445560
            Unit: GCDC-ADM
            Booking Number: 2013743620
            Charges: N/A

          • Fern Woodfork

            We Had This Dance Before Lying BITCH!! With A Name Like 69 We Know Who The Whore Is !! Remember Your Mother The iD Thief?? Now You Showing Her Rap Sheet LOL N/A Cause You Like You Lying Ass Party Of THUGS Just Make Shit Up!!! LOL Go Get A Job BITCH!! LOL FUCK YOU STALKER!!!

          • Fern Woodfork

            Yep Your Mother Is A Whore!! LOL Go FUCK YOURSELF!!!

          • plc97477

            You are just jealous.

    • Fern Woodfork

      I totally Agree With You My Friend!! In No Way President Obama Is Any Way Like Those Two Lying Thugs!!!

      • labrown69

        ROTFLMAO!

        • Fern Woodfork

          Brown Nosing Troll!!

          • labrown69

            You love the president because he is Black. You are not capable of judging his tenure objectively.

          • Fern Woodfork

            I See You Still Posting With The Brown Shit On Your Face!! Little Pussy Ass Bitch!!

    • sigrid28

      Under Euclid’s first law, Things which equal the same thing also equal one another.

  • tax payer

    Salt and Pepper aren’t the same color.

  • Catskinner

    Actually the question in the headline is misstated. Obama isn’t a threat to the constitution like Bush and Cheney. Bush and Cheney weren’t really a threat to the constitution at all–they had to do some things in the name of American security, but they were aware of the pitfalls as to where they were going. Obama is a threat to the constitution like Richard Nixon was a threat to the constitution–pulling off a political coup to gain total control of the government.

    • Independent1

      What total garbage!!!

    • Sand_Cat

      What have you been smoking?

    • charleo1

      Pulling off a political coup? Obama can’t get the Baggers in the House
      to fund meals on wheels, or free lunches, for poor kids. In fact,I could
      argue the entire GOP needs taken control of. They certainly have no
      control over themselves. One half of the U.S. Congress is now engaged
      in a totally useless, and insane, regimen. Week one, they draft and prepare
      a bill to repeal healthcare reform. Pass it, Send it to the Senate, where it’s
      promptly shit canned. Week two, they draft and prepare a bill to restrict
      abortion. Pass it, Send it to the Senate, where it’s filed with the previous
      week’s useless waste of time, and tax payer money. If suddenly the entire
      U.S. Congress were to be zapped to oblivion by space aliens. For all the
      consequence they have on anything, Obama could finish out his term,
      before anyone but the D.C. hookers, and drug dealers, noticed they were gone.

      • Catskinner

        Obama can’t get anyone to do anything. Nobody trusts him.

        • Weedbay Guy

          All you can say about Obama is he’s barely good enough. 90% want gun buyer background checks, so where is it? He can’t get it done. We only see him in California when he drops by to stuff his pockets with cash, pathetic.

          • charleo1

            Name another President besides Lincoln, that had more
            crap to deal with than Obama. So, maybe that’s just all you
            can say. Because that’s all you know. Fair enough.

          • Catskinner

            Dwight David Eisenhower, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, Harry Truman, Franklin Roosevelt, Teddy Roosevelt… The list is endless.

          • WhutHeSaid

            Bullshit. The opposition to Obama is historic for two reasons: 1) The sheer level of obstruction (how many House votes now to repeal the ACA? 37?), and 2) Much of it is bigoted or racist in nature.

          • Catskinner

            The speaker continues to hold votes on repealing Obamacare so freshmen representatives can go back to their districts and say they tried to stop it. It’s going to be even more unpopular after January, 2014 than it is now. When the voter anger grows raw enough to cross party lines in November, 2014. They will have enough votes to override a veto.

          • WhutHeSaid

            Don’t look now, but Republicans who actually want to get re-elected are opting in to Obamacare — like Arizona’s Jan Brewer. The vile, despicable and worthless Tea Bigots are getting booted out of government as Americans become ever more disgusted by their antics. Even the Republicans are tired of their despicable behavior — and that’s a low quality bar indeed.

          • Catskinner

            Wow! I’m glad I’m not a Republican.

          • WhutHeSaid

            Well, I can certainly agree with that sentiment. I would say that the only thing worse than that would be a vile, lying and thoroughly despised Tea Bigot – but of course they are merely Republicans who are also KKK members or sympathizers.

          • Dana Es

            You want to see anger? Try taking away the new healthcare from people who didn’t have it before but do or will now.

          • Catskinner

            You want to see real anger? Take federal healthcare away from those slimy IRS workers and stick them with Obamacare like everyone else gets. And that’s exactly what needs to happen.

          • charleo1

            I didn’t say name some Presidents. I said this Country
            was a train wreck when the Bush demolition crew finished.
            How many wars were we fighting under Gerald Ford?
            And, non-thinking government employees controlled all
            the information, until after the election. You talk as if
            you think the Country had a plausible choice, and it was
            a real close election. They didn’t, and it wasn’t.
            And you thought voters would be upset with Obama, over
            one of our embassies being attacked in Benghazi? And, Benghazi is different in what way from the embassies
            attacked under Bush, or Clinton? That it wasn’t just a
            mob of angry Arabs. It was a mob of angry Arabs, that had formed a gang. I’ll make you a deal. The very next war
            Obama lies us into, and we stay 8 years, and 4/5/ trillion
            dollars worth of debt is all we get out of it. Then, we’ll talk lies.

          • Catskinner

            You said name another president. I named 6 of them. Obama’s lies are more insidious than Bush’s lies. Obama’s lies are a lot like Nixon’s. The country did have a plausible choice. Romney would have helped the country instead of destroying it, and the election was less than 2% apart. If Obama hadn’t rounded up a bunch of illegal aliens and dead people to vote for him, Romney would have won.

          • neeceoooo

            I think catskinner is our local irritant, lana ward aka 33cats

        • charleo1

          Bull shit! Trust has nothing to do with it. It’s politics, and racism.
          You don’t get elected President, twice, if nobody trusts you.

          • Catskinner

            Actually, charleo1, you do. If hordes and hordes of non-thinking government employees who control the fundalmental information sit on it until after the election. All of the scandals–except for Benghazi–developed after the election. And they managed to lie about Benghazi (big lie told often) long enough to prevent it from having much of an impact.

          • WhutHeSaid

            Bigoted mud-slinging does not a scandal make. The biggest scandal about Benghazi is that the Republicans have the nerve to complain about the very security that they cut funding for and tried to cut even more. Nothing scandalous about the Obama administration has ever come out with respect to Benghazi despite furious efforts by the opposition to create a scandal.

          • Catskinner

            The Obama Administration has just been one lone string of scandals, from beginning to end.

          • WhutHeSaid

            Correction: The Obama Administration has endured continuous attempts to create scandals by bigoted redneck goobers since before Obama was even inaugurated. Sometimes I wonder if the redneck bigot attacks on Obama might be the real reason he was re-elected despite a lackluster economic recovery.

            Tea Bigots and other redneck slack-jaws have cried wolf so many times that few people even pay attention to their claims anymore. The bigoted squealing has sort of become a reassuring sound of success, allowing the rest of us to feel confident that all is right in the world.

  • bcarreiro

    bush suffers from shortman syndrome and he knows everyone hates him.

  • FT66

    Pres. Obama is a million miles away to be compared to Bush/Cheney. I haven’t heard since he became President that he has ordered anyone to be water-boarded. He hasn’t tried any maneuvering to take the country to war. Whatever measures he is taking to protect people is understandable. He can not let people whom he is leading be killed like that. Just imagine and god forbid, in case any attack happens while he is President, those who are strangling him about Benghazi, will rush to the White House and pack up his stuff, so that he can leave the place immediately.

    • K3HY

      Oh yeah, but President Obama will never catch up to GWB in number of soldiers lives lost just to score no-bid construction contracts in Iraq.
      GWB is the winner, hands down with over 4000 killed.
      President Obama will never come near that goal. What a loser. LOL

    • labrown69

      FT – do you live in a cave?

  • Canistercook

    Does anyone believe that the ‘National’ could possibly find ANY fault with their masiah!

    • http://mollysmiddleamerica.blogspot.com/ Middle Molly

      Why are you bothering to read and comment here?

      • Canistercook

        Because I guess I still dream we can salvage democracy and good government before we turn into another Greece or worse I guess.
        With half the population now on government checks and/or handouts and our inner cities falling apart I am not very hopeful. We used to be a productive nation that gave credit to people who created things. Now we scorn them and call them ‘rich and greedy’.

        • WhutHeSaid

          Stop telling whoppers. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are rich. Charles and David Koch are rich and greedy. If you can’t tell the difference then you should consider wearing a beanie with a propeller on top as a warning to other people of your dismally low IQ.

          • Canistercook

            Rich and greedy are descriptive terms. I see, if they think like you the rich are just rich but if they don’t they are greedy! Wonder who is really stupid!

            Sent from my iPad

          • WhutHeSaid

            The answer to your rhetorical question depends upon whether you actually believe your own posts. If you are lying about not knowing the difference, then that just makes you a liar. If you really can’t tell the difference between rich folks who care about those who aren’t as fortunate as themselves and greedy slugs who do everything to screw the less wealthy so that they can line their pockets with a few more shiny pennies — that makes you the very definition of stupid.

          • Canistercook

            There are rich who care and who don’t care and poor the same way. When you judge all rich as those who don’t vote for Obama as don’t care you apparently Decide based on their political views more than their actions. I recall that without the ‘rich there would be few great parks, museums, great schools etc. Right now ‘rich’ are obama’s Jews that he is encouraging you should be taxed to extermination. Not much has changed except it is the year 2013 not 1937!
            Sent from my iPad

          • WhutHeSaid

            I don’t know for certain whether Bill Gates and Warren Buffett voted for Obama, but that has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

            I see from your latest comment that you harbor anti-Semitic prejudices, and that tells me all I need to know. People will never be wealthy without the middle and lower class workers and consumers. This means that wealthy people need the vast working classes more than the working classes need them.

            Yes, there are both rich and poor who don’t care about other people — that’s true. When that happens to the extreme where they are infringing on the rights of others, then it’s time to slap them into conformance. That’s why we have penal laws.

            When the wealthy get to the point where they use their wealth in an attempt to impoverish the less fortunate, then it’s time to slap them on the back of the head until they cough up some of that ill-deserved wealth — at least until they get the point.

            The plaintive squealing of both types is the sweet sound of justice. I never tire of that tune, so please squeal on.

          • neeceoooo

            I don’t see the Koch brothers donating their money to charities or trying to help less fortunate countries.

          • Canistercook

            Guess you never watch PBS or are poorly informed.

            Sent from my iPad

        • Independent1

          Problem is that half the population is on government checks because of GOP nitwits – NOT OBAMA. Stupid GOP legislators in Red States cut budgets and services so much that they threw millions of RED STATE residents onto welfare and food stamps; knowingly by the way – which is why many red states have special programs to teach their unemployed and people living in poverty how to fill out Federal government assistance forms Proof of that is the fact that 21 of the 23 states with more than 15% of their populations living in poverty are RED STATES; 11 of the 15 states getting more than $1.50 in federal assistance for each $1 they pay in taxes are RED STATES. And more than 70% of people who get FOOD STAMPS, you guessed it, LIVE IN RED STATES!!! The GOP knows absolutely NOTHING about how to run a government – and I can assure you – YOU CAN’T RUN A SUCCESSFUL GOVERNMENT LIKE A BUSINESS!!!!

          • Canistercook

            After you have had an opportunity to study the amount most states and many cities owe in Government pensions to so called Civil servants get back to me. Also, incidentally it’s not fair to demand photo ID to vote because many people do not have one and they also don’t need to identify themselves either to sign up for welfare, food stamps, supplementary social security. They are all so honest – just don’t need a photo I.D,! Some people believe in the loch ness monster I guess!
            Sent from my iPad

          • WhutHeSaid

            What a bunch of horseshit. People need to identify themselves whenever they apply for any type of government benefits — a fact that most of the redneck citizens of so-called ‘red’ states know all too well because they consistently slurp up more in government benefits than they pay in taxes. Guess who pays for their benefits? The citizens of the so-called ‘blue’ states.

            The recent phenomenon of redneck goober officials to change voting ID requirements is nothing but a scam based upon a) the desire to cheat because their policies suck, b) the desire to discriminate against minorities, or both. If you are claiming that new voter ID laws are justified or needed then you are just lying. It’s a simple as that.

          • Canistercook

            Well recently I read that many poor blacks do not have photo ID’s so would be disenfranchised by not being able to vote. How do thy identify themselves for welfare programs if they are ‘poor’?
            Sent from my iPad

          • WhutHeSaid

            Whether they are black, white or any other color – government benefits are not rights guaranteed by the US Constitution. Voting rights are. How they identify themselves is up to the agency.

            You just be sure to tell us when you can think of a legitimate reason to tighten voter ID requirements.

          • plc97477

            Are you saying that all African-Americans are on welfare programs?

        • Dana Es

          Since a big portion of those government checks go to the elderly, the disabled, and those who serve or served in the military, I suggest that you stand up and tell them how little you think of them and that you feel they’re of no value and are a drain on this country. Some of them may be relatives or friends or neighbors, but I guess you won’t let that bother you, will you?

          • Canistercook

            I am not including the deserving groups so why are you! Just the explosive amounts being paid to the many non-deserving leeches and there are a heck of a lot of them!
            Sent from my iPad

          • Dana Es

            I included them because you said “half the population” is on government checks — the only way you can get that percentage is by including the elderly, the disabled, and those in the military.

      • Canistercook

        Trying to educate the masses on this site I guess! Sure is hard though!
        Sent from my iPad

        • WhutHeSaid

          It must be especially hard to ‘educate’ people who obviously already know more than you. Allow me to offer you a tip: Lying is not synonymous with educating. Always happy to help!

          • Canistercook

            You seem obsessed with the word ‘lying’.

            Sent from my iPad

          • WhutHeSaid

            Yeah — I argue with a lot of Tea Bigots. It comes with the territory.

          • Hawkeye71

            It must be difficult for the tea partiers to debate with a braindead slug like you. Hardly worth the effort.

          • WhutHeSaid

            It’s no matter – they always get fairly bold after visiting their sister. I’m guessing that you consider yourself a debate master, eh?

          • Hawkeye71

            Me debating a slug like you would be the same as me challenging a one-legged man to a butt-kicking contest. All liberals are cowards crawling on the floor begging the government to protect them. The only ones more cowardly are the likes of Graham,Issa,McCain,Bush jr.,Hatch, Cheney, Rove,Rubio, O’Reilly,and others of their cowardly ilk. So you can consider yourself a notch above them if that makes you feel better before you pray to Obama to bless you.

          • WhutHeSaid

            I see. So you really are a master ‘bater after all.

          • Hawkeye71

            Wow,what an intelligent comeback-You got me there. You libtards really are intellectuals-haha-

          • WhutHeSaid

            Yeah, not too sophisticated but right on the money. I go easy on Tea Bigots, because you goobers usually have enough drama with your sisters anyway.

          • Hawkeye71

            FO wormy-Go back to bed with your ugly mama and dream of Barney Frank. Maybe that’ll help you get it up for her.

          • WhutHeSaid

            Hey listen — it’s not my fault if your sister has a headache again, I mean — can you blame her?

          • Hawkeye71

            Well,there’s always your mama if I can get the dog out of the way and get past the smell.

          • WhutHeSaid

            Now I know that your redneck goober sister isn’t very appealing, but don’t you think calling her a dog is a bit harsh? And after all she did for you!

          • Hawkeye71

            Unless you want to meet halfway and settle it in person,let’s let it go. It’s getting childish. And I apologize for saying that about your mother. I’m sure she did the best she could.

          • WhutHeSaid

            Don’t feel like I don’t appreciate people like you. After all, God did put redneck bigots on this Earth for a reason: You can’t go around slapping down real people — that just wouldn’t be right. Beating the snot out of a mouthy redneck has always made me feel better when I was out of sorts. Still pals?

          • Hawkeye71

            I didn’t realize you had slapped me down or beat the snot out of me. We both know that wouldn’t happen in real life,don’t we? Yes,still pals.

          • WhutHeSaid

            Yep, there would be a lot of redneck crying, squealing, and pleading as you tried to talk your way out of the inevitable. It’s pitiful, really – but good for your soul. Somebody has to remind redneck bigots of their place in the world.

      • Hawkeye71

        Who read his/her comment to you and typed your reply?

  • Weedbay Guy

    Obama is a bitter disappointment in this liberals eyes. He convicted as many medical marijuana providers in 4 years as Bush convicted in 8. He’s adopted every policy from the Bush administration and is in constant campaign mode, showing no indication of leadership. The economy is still bogged down and I hate to sound like a republican but where is the change?

    • WhutHeSaid

      So are you disappointed because the Iraq war is over? Or perhaps the fact that gay people now have more rights upsets you? Perhaps you miss Osama Bin Laden. Maybe you were partial to millions of people lacking health insurance. Nostalgic for the good old days of waterboarding?

      I give up — just what is it that causes the bitter disappointment in you ‘liberal’ eyes? If you can’t tell the difference between Bush’s policies and Obama’s then perhaps your medical marijuana prescription needs paring back a bit.

      • Weedbay Guy

        Obama taking credit for ending the Iraq war is on par with Nixon claiming he ended the war in Vietnam. The reality in both cases is public opinion ended those wars. Obamacare should have been comparable to the health plan congress members enjoy, it is not, and has not provided insurance to anybody yet since it doesn’t go into effect until next year. Waterboarding hasn’t been legal since the Geneva convention but you seem to think Obama outlawed it. Take a look and you’ll find all those waterboarded still in infinite detention at gitmo. Chemical weapons in Syria will be Obama’s WMD’s. Monsanto rapes our seed supply while the banks rape our money supply.

        • WhutHeSaid

          So it’s not that you didn’t see change at all — it’s that whatever change you did see, you will seek out some way to deny that Obama had anything to do with it or come up with some other excuse that the change wasn’t exactly to your liking (or hasn’t taken effect yet).

          Waterboarding (and other torture) may have been outlawed by the Geneva Convention, but Bush actively conjured up justifications for it and then made it an operational reality. Obama immediately ended the practice. Both approaches took place despite the existence of the Geneva Convention rules.

          Obama has tried more than once to close down Guantanamo but has been repeated blocked by Republican opposition in Congress.

          Obama campaigned on a promise to end the war in Iraq — and he did just that. Public opinion has never ended any war, including Vietnam. Public opinion may influence elected officials, but it’s still the elected officials who actually end or continue hostilities.

          I think it’s clear that you’re disappointed simply because you want to be disappointed, and not because of anything that Obama did or failed to do.

          • Independent1

            Couldn’t agree more!!! It’s unfortunate we still have people like Weedy who have to bring up sour grapes about everything.

          • Weedbay Guy

            Oh, Obama had opposition therefore is off the hook. What about great politicians like LBJ passing civil rights in ’65. But that’s comparing a great politician to the mediocre Obama. About 3/4’s of what Obama campaigned on he doesn’t have the political mustard to pull off. I wish he would stop campaigning and start leading.I wish he would put an end to pissing all over the constitution via the NSA and infinite detention but that’s ok, he came out in favor of gay marriage, didn’t do anything to make it happen, but said he supported it, big whoopie.

          • WhutHeSaid

            Although I also oppose overreach by the NSA (and other agencies), I say that Obama has done a fairly decent job of living up to most of his campaign promises or at least trying to do so. Obama accomplished something that has been on the progressive ‘wish list’ for the better part of a century: health care reform.

            For a sitting President to publicly take a stand on a controversial issue like gay marriage is no small matter, and the effects of him doing so are very real. Just ask anyone who actually cares a great deal about the issue. Obama ended the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy of the US military — that’s also very important to many people and also very real.

            I don’t support all of Obama’s policies, but I do agree with most of them. He isn’t finished yet, so time will tell what his record of achievement will be by the time he leaves office. History will be the judge of that, but whatever the final score it will be despite a historic level of opposition and obstruction — especially by the vile and despicable low-life Tea Bigots.

            I question whether you are actually a ‘liberal’ if you can’t appreciate anything that Obama has accomplished, especially given the alternatives being offered by his opposition.

          • neeceoooo

            LBJ didn’t have the republicans fighting him all the way either

          • Weedbay Guy

            What LBJ said is these normally democrat states won’t vote democratic for 40 years if we pass this. It’s been 50 years and these former blue states are still voting republican and probably are the base of the tea party and still fighting Obama.

          • Independent1

            A group monitored the promises that Obama made over the years he was campaigning for the presidency and found that over the 4-5 years he was setting up for a presidential run, that he had made something over 500 campagin promises (I forget the exact numbers). About 3 years into his 1st term, they decided to go through the list of promises to see how many he had actually kept. What they found was that he had fully kept around 250 of those promises; and had partially kept about another 125; but was unable to follow through on about another 125. When they examined the reasons why he hadn’t been able to fully complete about half what promised, it all came down to GOP obstruction. It’s next to impossible to complete your promises when someone like Mitch McConnell is going to use the filibuster rule in the Senate more than 400 times over about 3 years to prevent your party from accomplishing virtually anything it has wanted to do that the GOP has adamantly opposed. But in any case – even with that, I think you will be hard pressed to find any other president that has even come close to fulfilling 250 of the promises they made while campaigning.(forgetting about the 250 that the GOP has been successful in fully or partially opposing.)

          • plc97477

            No LBJ was lily white.

    • charleo1

      Being a bit unfair with some of the criticisms. Don’t you think?
      Since you brought up marijuana first, I’m guessing that’s where most of the bitter disappointment is for you personally. At least, in my opinion, it’s where you make your best argument. And, although I had to break off my youthful love affair with pot more than 30 years ago. Because employers started
      testing for it, and Ronald Reagan started putting wonderful people, just like
      myself in prison for simple possession. Sometimes we must do as we must.
      But, I can say from my own experience, the parting was not difficult. No
      sleepless nights, no withdrawal pains, or 12 step programs, obviously, I’m
      still alive, no worse for the wear. If only our Civil Rights could have come
      through the war on drugs as unscathed as I did. Pot is the number one
      cash crop of the drug cartels. And, unfortunately, it’s also the number one cash crop for law enforcement, prosecutors, defense lawyers, bail bondsmen, the for profit, prison corporations, plus the parole, and probation departments, all across the Nation. But, to say he adopted every policy that Bush had, is not correct. He tried to close Gitmo. Congress, yes, his own Democratic Congress, would not allow it. The economy which was shedding 800,000 jobs each month, including, the very month he took office. He
      made a lot of difficult choices in those first few months. He made them, and
      was largely correct on the whole. GM, the stimulus package, they said
      was a waste. But the economy didn’t start adding jobs on it’s own. In fact,
      the GOP could not have been more uncooperative. And have remained so.
      And that campaigning, versus leadership thing? Not right at all. It’s not.
      I thought that’s what Presidents do, when faced with a stubborn Congress.
      The President has a plan to make the economy better. But, Congress must act. A President is not allowed in this Country, to just order his plan into action. So, they take their case to the American public. Yes, they campaign.
      You know, as many times as I’ve heard that particular charge, that Obama is
      not showing leadership. I have yet to hear someone say exactly what
      that leadership they claim he is not showing, would look like. So, maybe
      you’ll tell me? I’m always ready to learn new things.

      • Weedbay Guy

        As far as leadership goes, and on the marijuana legalization issue. Clinton allowed states to govern themselves when there was a conflict between state law and federal law regarding the distribution of welfare. Obama has 19 medical marijuana states and 2 recreational states and he’s said NOTHING. Absolutely mute on the issue as to how he will handle the situation in Colorado and Washington. As far as the things he’s campaigned on, he campaigned on fixing the infrastructure. Last week a truck drove over a bridge while a puff of wind came up and the bridge collapsed and the truck is sitting in the river. Keep in mind Ike built the entire interstate highway system in 7 years. The housing industry fixed itself, and that’s a good thing because ultimately that’s what brought down the economy but if you’re looking for the government actions toward this solution good luck finding it.

        Has Obama made great strides in punishing companies that send jobs overseas? Has he done anything to punish the bankers that destroyed the economy? Has he taken the bull by the horns regarding global warming. What’s his views on the keystone pipeline, we don’t know because you have to make decisions to be considered a leader. As far as I can tell he’s just another shill for big oil, big pharma, big banks and I’m waiting to see him stand up for the little guy.

        • charleo1

          No Sir. I don’t agree with your conclusions. As I said,
          The President cannot order roads built. He cannot make
          law. He cannot bring suit aganist banks, if they didn’t
          break the law. And the banks wrote the laws. And the
          punishment for getting convicted, on those rare occasions
          where they do. They pay a fine. Bush was a shill. Obama
          signed the first financial reform bill, since Clinton, and
          the GOP lead Congress changed the banking rules in ’98.
          And set up the conditions for the economic failure.
          The insurance cartels fought reform. Shills would have
          done nothing in either case. Ike was a 50/60 Republican.
          When was the last time you heard a Republican say
          anything about building a road? They are all about screw
          you Jack, I’ve got mine. But, just being a generalist.
          And saying, I’m disappointed, and it’s the President’s fault.
          Is a very superficial way of looking at things. And it’s not
          a very accurate way either.

          • Weedbay Guy

            For reals? B of A hired huge amounts of people to forge documents and forge bank presidents names to phony home loans and your excuse for not stepping in is that no laws were broken? Amazing. You’re saying the president is nearly powerless yet without LBJ the civil rights amendment would have never happened. Apparently you are so happy with lip service and lack of action you’ve forgot about ‘shovel ready jobs’, tax incentives for companies that keep jobs here, punishment for sending jobs overseas, Promises to fund AmeriCorps from 75,000 slots today to 250,000. We need to have a tax code where secretaries aren’t paying a (higher) tax rate than their bosses. Where are all these promises? Nine thousand earmarks in the stimulus, Obama said there would be none.He promised to dump the patriot act, yet a terabyte of data fits on the blade of a swiss army knife, the NSA has a million square feet in Utah. While campaigning he said he’d ask Mexico and Canada to renegotiate NAFTA, another broken promise. Instead of croonyism towards Halibuton it’s now Solyndra. I don’t think there’s all that much difference as you’re making between the Bush and Obama years. I don’t have a lobbyist and my voice still isn’t being heard.

          • charleo1

            Look, we know the financial sector had gone wild. Churning
            real estate so fast, they couldn’t keep up with the paperwork.
            Was that proper? No. Was it an actual crime? Have they
            been fined? I’m not a lawyer, and I don’t know. What I do
            know is corporations mostly do as they damn well please.
            Their lawyers write the laws, their lobbies take it to the
            politicians, who find a way to pass it into law. Obama didn’t
            invent this. It was already there. Obama didn’t deregulate the
            financial sector. But, he’s supposed to fix it himself, chop,
            chop! The fact is, there is this small club, out there, of which you’re obviously a member. And they all use the same tactic,
            or method. They have their laundry list they pick from. And,
            more often that not, they claim they were once supporters
            of Obama. But now feel so disillusioned, and betrayed.
            But in their complaining, they show themselves as actually
            knowing very little about the issue they say they were so
            let down over, that Obama didn’t fix. It’s purely contrived.
            It ignores the unprecedented obstruction by the GOP.
            and always assumes, for dramatic effect, that Obama as
            President, could change tax law, order a highway built,
            stop a gushing oil spill 5 miles down in the Gulf of Mexico,
            if he wanted to. But, since he said he was for the issue in
            question, but as President, he didn’t order it done. Then,
            he must be lying then, about the whole thing. Of course,
            what it boils down to is either willful ignorance, or politics,
            as understood by simpletons. So, pick your poison.

  • rustacus21

    … & what is remarkable is the ingratitude of Republicans in the tragic reality that President Obama has yet to even move 2ward dismantling the 2001-2009 policy legacy of THAT conservative administration. Worse still is not ridding his own administration of all the holdovers of the previous administration that have caused him so many headaches & heartache. Homeowners, the unemployed, consumers broadly, by being victimized by increasing & out of control banking policies (still costing taxpayers billions, due to continuing ‘gambling’ activities by big banks), students (w/unbearable & increasing loan debts), the privatization CURSE, of which this current ‘headache’ – the CONTINUATION of ‘illegal’ spying policies, that virtually make ALL American’s ‘suspect’ of… what? There’s no rational explaination for spending this sort of money on such a policy, when conversely, policies of the Clinton administration created allies across the Muslim world & THEN, assisted those same allies in rooting OUT violent fundamentalist elements, w/determined, vigorous, comprehensive American support! We’ve been so hammered & beaten down as a nation, we’ve forgotten what EXCELLENT good Clinton-era policies meant to the nation/world, ALL w/out so much as violating even so much as a ‘letter’ w/in any laws – keeping the nation safe meanwhile!!! Prior laws on surveillance were w/out question, able to meet ANY contingent emergency (i.e., getting a later warrant in cases of immediate actions). This law is rife w/the spectre of potential abuse, as we still don’t know the full extent of what this still-secret policy action is capable of. The 2006 ‘discovery’ revealed domestic spying was part of this equation, so what’s to stop future Republican administrations (God forbid) from pulling actions from the Nixon playbook, as was the case w/the 2001-2009 administration, in gathering damaging intell on its political enemies? It was incumbent on President Obama to therefore, immediately dismantle this, ‘Fast & Furious’, the prohibition on helping underwater homeowners, increasing broadly, environmental protections & new energy R&D initiatives, etc., all of which were policy priorities of ‘candidate’ Obama. But having fallen victim to conservative bullying & intimidation’s, remaining, dangerously positioned to continue menacing the American citizenry. All told, w/out a STRONG Congress, to compliment & PUSH a luke-warm Senate majority, the administration – & nation, consequently, will remain in flux & continue to be plagued by such policy ‘abominations’…

  • bhaggen

    No; Obama has actually out-Bushed Bush! And now he wants to get the U.S. involved in Syria? Obama lies, people dies! They’re ALL liars; get used to it!

  • bhaggen

    No; Obama has out-bushed Bush. And now he wants to suck the U.S. into Syria? Obama lies, people dies! They all lie, get used to it.

  • K3HY

    That’s the trouble with over 4000 Americans lives lost and hundreds of thousands with lifelong injuries from Iraq, just to score no-bid construction contracts in Iraq for Team Cheney.
    There will never be enough fabricated scandals to make families ever forget the evil that caused their losses.
    Maybe after a generation or two, after the memories of those dead and injured is long gone, the fascist Republican Taliban Tea Party will succeed in making people forget.

  • silence dogood

    The only difference between Nixon and Obama is when Obama declares “I am not a crook” he will be reading from a teleprompter.

  • silence dogood

    Once again —- IQ of a fern.

  • silence dogood

    Once again — IQ of a fern.

  • daniel bostdorf

    The jury is out about Obama. We need to take a breath and look long term. But I believe Obama, as a moderate Republican in Democrat skin is too much of an apologist for NSA/CIA abuses, that frankly, he condones.

    In that regard he is like Nixon and Bush….but HARDLY a carbon copy or anything like the evils of Nixon/Reagan/Bushes 1&2….

    it is simply ignoring historic facts to ever compare Obama to any other President except Lincoln…Obama faces “civil war” at all fronts particularly by the racist and fascistic GOP/Teaparty and southern successionist states (its 1850’s all over again)

    Conason states what I agree with:

    “…but no president should enjoy the kind of exemption from
    congressional scrutiny that his predecessors exploited. Whatever
    Snowden’s intentions may be, he has inspired members of Congress to
    provide stricter oversight of the government’s gargantuan data-gathering
    efforts, which are inherently prone to overreach even under the most
    responsible supervision. At the very least, Congress and the public need
    to know how the government wields its powers under the PATRIOT Act – an
    interpretation that remains classified and thus precludes democratic
    oversight. The president’s response to that question will test his commitment to the Constitution he swore to uphold.”

    Until Obama supports repealing The “Patriot” Act and his support for NSA abuses….I am extremely disappointed with Obama ONLY in this regard.

scroll to top